New Mudbox so impressive...

#3

Ive been runing Zbrush for almost three years but I switched to Mudbox 1.0.7 during an indie game production and Im very happy I did. The interface and functionality is just so much more straightforward and logical compared to zbrush. Mudbox 2 looks extremely promising but theres no reason not to try the current version today already.

#4

Since I only use Zbrush for Maya texturing switching to Mudbox would be practical(I really dislike the difference between interfaces).

Being able to add or remove edges, extrude polygons and texture at multiple subdivisions without complicated procedures would be nice. The closer it moves to real life modelling and painting, the better.

#5

Has anyone here seen luxology’s Modo. I think this ap blows away both ZBrush and Mudbox. Pixar has been using it, I know they used it for a few Robots on wall-e. It has amazing modling, sculpting, and rendering workflows. Also the viewport already handled this many poly’s with better textures and better results.

If Im not mistaken autodesk also tried to buy them out and when they idnt they tried to muscle them out by getting to their resellers.

http://www.luxology.com/

As long as this is around with the great support that is has. I will not be using either mudbox or ZBrush.

I found it wierd that Modo 3.02 was not mentiond along side of these apps though.

#6

I don’t know, I think MudBox had a lot of steam while Pixologic was languishing, but ZBrush 3 just smoked MudBox by all accounts when it was released. The good thing is that they don’t necessarily have to compete solely on features. It would help if MudBox was ported to OS X though, just more customers and potential customers.

#7

I use MODO for modelling and while it’s a nice tool it can’t even touch upon the sculpting mudbox offers! One day maybe but I can’t see it happening for a while as they try to concentrate on getting new disciplines in there.

Mudbox looks the dogs IMO, can’t wait to give it a test run…

#8

I ditched modo in favor of mudbox.
Zbrush is also VERY good but the interface in mudbox works much better for me.
Modo = die Scheiße

Mod Warning
don’t insult people, and ESPECIALLY not in a different language

#9

Got a link? My google cant find anything apart from a secret presentation that was supposed to have happened.

#10

http://area.autodesk.com/mudbox_preview

#11

you clearly have not used Zbrush or Mudbox… to put Modo the the same area is wrong…

I’m a Long time Modo user since 102 & have ZB and MB.

#12

Modo is a subD Modeler - Just as Silo. You an compare Modo and Silo if you want to.

Mudbox and ZBrush are digital sculpting applications. They’re not SubD Modelers, it’s not the same thing, even though you can do some basic sculpting now in Silo and Modo. But it’s not the same thing, they’re different tools used for different purposes.

Mudbox could be really neat for painting textures now - let’s see if it supports layered textures and how well the brush engine works. It’d be nice to have a non-destructible workflow and layered texture painting in a digital sculpting app.

#13

Sure, why not Hexagon then? Please let’s not start comparing apples and oranges here.

#14

Im not sure about the usefulness of that, Id rather have Bodypaint3D and Mudbox as two separate apps ach specialising in what they do best. Pixologic tried to squeeze it into Zbrush and they did it badly, IMO.

#15

may i ask how you are able to paint on a mesh with a few million polygons in bodypaint? :wink:

#16

A new update posted

http://area.autodesk.com/mudbox_preview#render_performance_pt2

#17

Ah thanx:)

#18

IMO, familiarity/ease of use will win out in the end. If the next Mudbox release has nice texturing capabilities (which has been hinted at!), Mudbox will definitely get my money!

#19

With my magic wacom pen, crafted by the nibelungen out of babies beards and giants breath? :smiley:

No, Ive never even tried painting on a hi-res mesh, never needed to. But I can imagine it being useful at times. I dislike zbrush’s texturing since its either planar projecting 2D(projection master) or a kind of vertex painting thats completely dependant on the density of the mesh. If Mudbox 2’s texturing is similar then it wont be of much use to me either :frowning:

#20

you can turn zbrush poly paint into a rtexture map you know?..did you read the 3dworld tutorial on the dinosaur?

so poly painting in mudbux will be great as long as you can also convert it into a map like you can in zbrush.

#21

Two things that keep me dangling on the zbrush power teet at this time: polypainting and zspheres for blocking out the polgyons SOO much faster than box modeling (I modeled the low poly duckbill head and body in my portfolio in five minutes with zspheres…no lie; it would have taken me hours and possibly days in Maya). If Mudbox can one up these two areas then I’ll easily switch, otherwise I’ll stay with zbrush for now.

#22

Two strengths that Mudbox has for the long run.

  1. Designed by pro artists for pro artists. Similiar to Pixologic, they want the best. The other part is, these guys are industry vets. it was built to model amazingling well AND easily fit into a pipeline.

  2. Node based. MAYA-Node based, Shake-Node based…the list goes on. For optimal performance and expandability node based is where its at. I can see this being a huge benefit.
    I’m glad to be an artist in this day’n age.

As for Zbrush. It rocks. Pixologic is willing to be very experimental and try things others haven’t before them. They are willing to do things differently and it clearly pays off. I’ve never been able to get up and running so quickly with other software, because of the online demonstrations and tutorial videos picking up the differences from other software was a breeze.

The Mudbox developers are going to really do an amazing job I can tell.

The two companies have their own strength and will propel eachother in competition. As artists, we win having more choices because of competition.